"...intelligent career women have lower fertility rates than their less able sisters."

I'm surprised this statement didn't come with a link to some obscure stats site. Does that mean career-oriented ambitious women are morphing into barren power-brokers? And that "intelligent career-minded" women are "more able" than fertile women? Twist it whichever way you will, it's the biggest load of codswallap I've heard in a long time.

Am I the only one who thinks that women's "choice" of work or career is a bad thing? Toss a coin sweetheart. It ain't hard.

Having to chose between "having a career and having children" is a wretched choice but it is one that many women have to face. I repeat, not all women can find a well paid supportive partner.

And I stand by my elitist comment that well educated high status women have lower fertility rates than less well educated women

Women are choosing. They are choosing not to have children. As soon as they had the option to control their fertility and return to the workforce, they did. If we make it hard for them to be in the workforce and earn their own money and have children, chances are, they will (indeed, are) choose not to have children, or no more than one.
Who cares whether Boaz David or Lisamaree like or approve of their choice? It is happening and will continue. We need to ask young women what they want, not what religious leaders, politicians, business leaders and pontificators of all kinds think they should have. You'll find they not only want to work, they cannot imagine a future where they don't. They'd like to have kids too, but not at the price we are currently asking.
Once, women had no choice, now they do. Like it or not, what women want must be taken into account.

Laurie,
I don't think it is a circular argument, as there were women in those studies who had no dependant children, (either having no children at all, or their children had left home), but still these women had higher life satisfaction if their husbands were the main breadwinners.

It can also be shown by the number of women who retire early, (and most women retire much earlier than men), but still require their husbands to keep working. There are actually very few women who work to close to retirement age, and the vast majority drop out much earlier.

The women will frequently uses the men as workhorses and pay packets, (even if they have no children), but this factor is seldom mentioned.

Also I think "work" in the workplace is over glorified by many feminists. In reality, work can often be drudgery with high levels of both physical and mental stress for few rewards,, and the higher up the chain someone goes, the longer hours they are normally expected to work, and the more responsibility they are normally expected to carry. I think many women begin to see this once they have worked in industry for a while, so they drop out early, (either by working part time, or not at all), and let their husbands earn the income.

If academics want to talk about women and work, then they should incorporate all aspects and not just a few, (eg incorporate the level satisfaction expressed by so many women who have their husbands working full time while they do not, the early retirement ages of so many women, the 28% of women who do not have children, the fact that married mothers have more children than unmarried mothers etc). Once all such information is on the table, then there can be a clearer picture of the situation, and there is less likelihood of misinformation being spread.

To enjay,

You say, "We need to ask young women what they want..."

But I say, we also need to ask young men, what do they want?

Right now young men are gaining momentum in anti-marriage, anti-commitment, women-can-go-hang, marriage strike attitudes. You may not be close enough to men, and young men in particular to hear their voices, but despite an education system that intentionally dumbs them down academically, young men today, aren't stupid.

The social debate has for the last 30 years focused on women to the extent that women now live in a princess privileged world here in the west. But the social debate has begun to shift and young men simply can't see any advantage for them to take the risk of marriage. Especially now when young women are going 'raunch' - they get what they want without the risk of divorce or the responsibility of caring for a wife. So what you and others are discussing as "a woman's choice" is rapidly evaporating. Women will "have" to work to support themselves, because young men can't be bothered. Why should they?

Feminism has inadvertently liberated young men from being chained to a wife, children and mortgage. And if you thought the chaining was the other way around, then think again.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with Cannold's call for sexist teaching of logic to schoolgirls.

Perhaps she's right. Perhaps women do need a few lessons on staying logically on the point instead of digressing and shifting the focus onto themselves and their own particular selfish lifestyles and points of view. If this forum is any guide, she may appear to be correct.

Timkins,
My point is directed towards those who claim a womens roles is in the home.

I am sure there are many females who want nothing better than to be kept - just as I am sure there are many men who treat their female partner as a play thing/punching bag/bad day release toy.

My point is simply that two people together have options. I am in a relationship with a woman who has the potential to reach a top executive job within the next 5 years – sometime about when we are thinking of having children. It would be ludicrous of me to tell her she should give up that job – which pays better than mine – so I get a ‘sense of fulfilment’ while she ‘fulfils her feminine urges’. Both are hogwash.

I do understand where you are coming from Timkins. But to lumber all women under the same umbrella is too general. I say: take each on their/her/his merits and try to do what is right for both of you. If you cannot reach mutual agreement, then there is, in my opinion, something wrong with the relationship.

In relation to this article, I think that educating the women is only half the battle. Both men and women need to see each other as equals. Educate both to find the desire to work together. If in a family situation – decide what is best for the family. If it means the man stays at home – so what?

I like ‘sands’ idea – design a work place where both get some leeway. If this were another thread tough, I would say the new world order is making damn sure that does not happen!

Yes, Maximus, there is a backlash. But isn’t it just about finding a little respect for both sides? This shouldn’t be like a battle. Men and women are supposed to be made for each other (oh, my gawd, how religious is that?!). Why is it that there are so many on either side that just want to take advantage of the other?